Zwinglius Redivivus

Rush Limbaugh: Dilettante

Posted in Dilettante, disdain, pseudo-christianity, pseudo-theology by Jim on August 14, 2013
Rush Limbaugh Cartoon by Ian D. Marsden of mar...

Rush Limbaugh Cartoon by Ian D. Marsden of

When Rush begins offering theological opinions I have the same reaction as I would if a multiply divorced drug addicted non-Christian dropout tells Christians how to act ethically. Which is to say, I disregard such opinions as based on the views of a fool. Which, frankly, is exactly what Limbaugh is.

Limbaugh, seriously, has as much business telling Christians what they must or must not believe as a gay atheist couple has in telling a Christian mom and dad how to pray during the birth of their child.

Limbaugh is a dilettante. But he’s not even deserving of a dilly award. He’s just deserving of disdain.  And if you get your theology from Limbaugh you have bigger problems than he does.

Limbaugh’s only true concern and interest is Limbaugh.  Narcissistic doesn’t quite capture the full import of his self aggrandizing self interest.  Were all the universe a mirror, Limbaugh still wouldn’t see himself as enlarged as he imagines his importance to be.

About these ads

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Milton Almeida - The Grace Ambassador said, on August 14, 2013 at 11:19

    I need help! Sincerely! I need to know what is wrong with this statement and what is theological about it. I am being sincere not sarcastic: What is wrong with this? To me, another dilettante, Rush is exposing the “deification” of men that I am so adamantly against: (too bad we cannot use emphasis, but I used the * – or asterik .

    “*You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something that he can’t create,”* he continued. “The vanity! These people — on the one hand, ‘We’re no different than a mouse or a rat.’ If you listen to the animal rights activists, we are the pollutants of this planet. If it weren’t for humanity — the military environmentalist wackos — the Earth would be pristine and wonderful and beautiful, and nobody would see it. According to them we are not as entitled to life on this planet as other creatures because we destroy it. But how can we destroy it when we’re no different from the lowest life forms?”

    “And then on the other end, ‘We are so powerful. And we are so impotent — *omnipotent that we can destroy* — *we can’t even stop a rain shower, but we can destroy the climate.’ And how? With barbecue pits and automobiles, particularly SUVs. It’s absurd.”*

    Also, the once painkiller addict (different than a recreation drug addiction), now punished with deafness, using a cochlear implant, (as painkillers are recognized as one of the main causes of hearing loss- I had a hearing aid license before which required a basic audiology course) is stating an opinion and not lecturing anyone or representing himself to be a theologian. But, then again, who am I?

    Anyway, where did Rush go wrong here? Is it the fact that he, like me and many scientist, including the “inventor” of the theory, do not really believe the claims of “men made” Global Warming?

    If criticism to Rush is restricted to the fact that he says that “you cannot believe in God” if you believe Global Warming, then I agree with a reservation: YES, believers and proponents of men as capable of destroying everything in creation while God watches passively and powerlessly, are indeed self-deifying themselves.
    But I already confessed to be an amateur, or the preferred Gallicism “dilettante”.

    – See more at:

    • Jim said, on August 14, 2013 at 11:33

      rush’s statements are based on a primary falsehood: that one’s relationship to God can be based on one’s scientific views. hence, he is misleading, deceiving, and a profoundly inept dilettante.

      • Milton Almeida - The Grace Ambassador said, on August 14, 2013 at 11:58

        Thank you for your answer! I can agree with it!
        We need to preserve some theological purity, I am all for that. I nearly die when I see Rush, O’Reilly and others in the press meddling in theology. It is as if a car mechanic was giving advice on brain surgery. It doesn’t work. If it would be a “legal” issue that they were providing opinions about, they could be very well sued for undue influence.
        Thanks again!

Comments are closed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,079 other followers